I'll have to go with Joy on that one. Truman finished the fight with Germany in '45 but he didn't take it to them in '41. However, Eric's point still stands that Germany was part of the problem and had to be dealt with. Same as Iraq…if we didn't go there in 2003, we still would have gone there eventually. Hussein would have done something at some point that would have required a response from the USA and a tough one at that.

How about 50,000 dead (not Lancet numbers btw) not counting the 10,000 plus wounded in Vietnam? Ever hear anyone on the left call Kennedy a war criminal?

edit: I should also note these are just US casualties

The comparison of using the Bomb to torture is false.

It can be argued that the choice Truman made was between large Japanese casualties or even greater American and Japanese casualties through conventional warfare.

In the case of Bush and torture, the enemies (and some innocents) had already been captured and there were alternate methods of extracting information that were more effective and reliable than torture. But the Bush Administration wanted short cuts and weren't too worried if the coerced information was accurate or not.

At the end of the day we have no problem with Mr Stewart. He is a self-admitted liberal, and not exactly a policy wonk, either. One remembers back to the first real crescendo of criticism on Iraq. Stewart, who was against it from the beginning allowed this reflection- "what if Bush is right? what if this ends up protecting my children (in the long run)?"

It's hard to imagine that type of honest reflection from other left-leaning media types. Harry Truman was the George W Bush of his time, and was vindicated by the 40 year success of the Truman Doctrine. One suspects
Mr Bush's Doctrine will have like results- if we don't surrender first…

Seeing that Harry Truman (whom Roosevelt very reluctantly put on his ticket) was VP in 1941 he wasn't a factor. What is interesting to speculate is would Roosevelt have had the stones to do what no-nonsense Truman did in 1945? Roosevelt was a ditherer, and drove Churchill nuts. In Truman he ahd an ideological soul mate. Interesting speculation…

Joy McCann, you beat me to the punch. It seems that Stewart is not the only one whose credibility should be questioned, eh? Of course, the retort will be that FDR was a "liberal", too. As long as it fits into his narrowminded arguement, it won't matter to this hack of a "journalist".

What is Tygrrrrr?

Laughable piece.

thats lame arugment to say we had to go after Iraq, why because he wouldn't give USA free reighn on all economic matters, Iraq war was started by economic hitmen controlling gov't dessision making. To say they are part of the problem without including what the problem is about as big of propaganda as many of state spondered attacks against thier own citizens. PS I wounder how many people are paid to give missleading comments on website…Thats where all the homeland sucurity dollars must be going

George W. Bush has never apologized for the 4,283 brave men and women that died fighting for a lie. He has never apologized for the thousands of innocent Iraqis killed, nor has he apologized to the majority of Iraq that did not want the US to invade their country.

You can't even compare Bush and Truman. One was a retaliatory attack and one was unprovoked. Bush is a war criminal just like every other who brutally invaded a sovereign country not at war. Justice will not be served for our soldiers or the Iraqis until Bush is tried and convicted for his crimes.

Another difference, by the way: Germany and Japan were treaty-bound allies. When we declared war on Japan, Germany declared war on us.

No such thing happened with Iraq.

Weren't too worried? Weren't worried enough, Sojourner. Remember the Pentagon report that 61 former detainees had returned to terrorism after being released? Make a real argument, please.

Truman had to do it. Roosevelt was too busy appearing on TV during the Depression to handle the war

"there were alternate methods of extracting information that were more effective and reliable"

Like what?

…along with such other "brave" people who fought for this country like Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Weiner, Nugent, George Will, Cheney, Gingrich, etc. etc…

If you are questioning the fact that it was Roosevelt who initially took the fight to Germany, you should state that clearly. Not doing so will get you a heapin' helpin' of pie.

yes, please do… in the aftermath of 9/11 we did what was necessary to protect our homeland. Can you imagine telling the people in LA that we didn't make the hairy fat slob Khaleed Sheikh Mohammed uncomfortable and allowed thousands of US citizens to perish when he said under interrogation "you will soon find out?" Others gave up intel willingly. It varies from time to time. Believe this to be true- the Current Occupant will have extrordinairy rendition done on certain targets.

And they will not be given tea and scones..

shutup

You're right, Iraq wasn't at war because the Kurds and civilians couldn't defend themselves. Why don't you talk to some of the brave men and women and get their take on it? Every single one I talk to are proud they went there and liberated the people of Iraq. How many care packages have you sent the brave men and women in service? Ever donate to the USO? How about Soldiers Angels?

I'd like to speak eloquently on this subject, but Jon Stewart is the devil's bitch.

"Right. So what if nearly 4300 American servicemen died to eliminate nonexistent WMD's?
Psst. You're the problem. "
—

Is that what they died for? Really? Wow. You sir, are a genius. Thank you for enlightening me.

All this time I thought there were a host of other reason we went into Iraq. Something about Iraq not abiding by the '91 cease fire agreement, offering aid to terrorists, Clinton's pledge of regime change in Iraq, the brutalization of his population and, yes, Iraq's WMD programs. Guess I was wrong.

Thank you again for the history lesson.

Too much light in your bunker this morning?

Idiot

Auntie! Pie! Pie pie pie pie pie pie pie pie pie piepiepiepiepiepiepiepiepiepiepiepiepie!!!!

…A half-baked pie, as is his wont.

You, obviously do not keep up with current events. What color is the sky in your world?

As auntie strives for the crux, there goes another BDS rant. Thorazene stat! b/t/w – blow it out your pants.

Back in 2004, when Jon Stewart was growing in popularity with his new show, I warned several people, including my mother, that Jon Stewart's blend of news and comedy, with leftist ideology, will dumb down Americans and skewer the Bush administration with very stupid things to say. To this day, how right I still am about Jon Stewart's stupidity and his stupid show.

And I love how he acted like the Hammer of the Gods when he ambushed Cramer on his show.

Why didn't he go after those in congress that allowed all this to happen in the first place??

Because Cramer was a soft target that couldn't defend himself in that hostile environment and Stewart knew it. Stewart is a complete pansie, I'll bet he pees sitting down.

If y'all can stop watching those "24" re-runs and open a book, try "How to break a terrorist : the U.S. interrogators who used brains, not brutality, to take down the deadliest man in Iraq" by Matthew Alexander with John R. Bruning.

So curious how so many people who obviously know nothing about interrogation are so intent on proving the righteousness of torture.

I thought it was Cheney…..can you guys get your story right???

yes, half baked, runny. No Poppin' Fresh here…

love the verb modifier 'mildly'… being kind, aren't you?

I don't know what any of what you just said has to do with anything I said.

Stalin was in the stronger position at Yalta and FDR had little choice but make those concessions. Perhaps we could have immediately gone to war with the Russian, but we wouldn't have been the favorites. Churchill may have thought otherwise, but Churchill was an idiot prone to risky mistakes.

I'm sure I didn't change your mind. Whatever. None of what happened at Yalta refutes the fact that the UK had its ass saved by the US and USSR. Churchill talked tough, but his military was no match for the Germans.

That person can type, but beyond that one cannot distinguish between what comes out of his mouth and what extrudes from his backside….

John Stewart found himself in the precise corner I love to paint modern liberals* into. Because modern liberalism is based upon emotions, rather than facts, logic and reason, they can not compete with facts, logic and reason. They are like kryptonite. Debate them long enough and eventually you'll get them to step into an obvious dichotomy, and then you have them.

At this point, most modern liberals will whip out some totally juvenile insult, proclaim themselves the winner of the debate, insist the opposition is an idiot, and strut off to tidy up following their mental orgasm.

But Stewart was on the air. He couldn't just storm off, he was trapped, tripped up, and had to suck it up. Either agree Truman was a war criminal, or else admit Truman's actions weren't.

Check and mate.

* I use the term modern liberal to describe the current incarnation of the left. That is to differentiate them from classical liberals, who cared about really strange things, like liberty.

Truman wasn't the VP in 1941, he was in 1944…

Banjo-plucking, trogdolyte, bunker-dwelling, crpto-facist twit.

You know, here's the thing about Golub and pretty much anyone who contributes to Breitbart: anyone with any point of view that skews even slightly from the rules of right wing groupthink is completely delinquent in his standpoint, is subhuman and must be shipped out of America (which, of course, the right wing holds title to) or face a firing squad.

Early in this diatribe, Golub calls The New York Times the "Jayson Blair Times" in some glib way of being cute and pronouncing the paper is usually wrong. I'm not defender of the Times, but Golub fails to qualify his statement with the amount of times the New York Post is wrong. In fact, the post is freqeuently wrong and prints outright lies, quite a few of which they've been sued for.

So now he turns his attention to Jon Stewart, a comedian, as if there are only certain jokes John can tell that follow the prescription of his Golub's narrow-minded point of view. In Nazi Germany, they also scrutinzed comedians for making fund of the Third Reich — that is until they imrisoned or killed them.

Well, Golub once again has proven what a sorry little man he is along with the rest of the Breitbart crew, who do nothing to push forward the cause of conservatism in to a balanced national political discourse.

They only feel that all of us should have a "with us or against us" attitude about everything. I guess in Golub's mind it's easier to fit a square peg into a round hole if you have a mallot.

FDR went before a group of young American leftist/socialist/Marxist during the early 40's and denounced communism (small c) in a Rose Garden speech/appearence and was heckled by the assembled young commies. He didn't give in a inch to the group of no-nothings. Just a few years later we have McCarthy seeking out communists infiltrating our government, any wonder why? Had those students and like minded "comrades" accended into main stream America, and perhaps even the U.S. government? A merchant marine seaman recounts the experience of a communist leaning American and fellow seaman going to the USSR for the first time during the war, the seaman tells of that young communist renouncing communism when he saw the suffering in the USSR caused by the system, not just the Germans. It's in a program airing on PBS about Stalin and his relationship with FDR and Churchill.

Stalin was stronger or FDR was the bigger wimp? It was the 2nd!!! To bad Truman didn't do to Stalin what he had done to the Japanese. Patton was right!!! Not to mention, churchill help save his own country's but both from the previous British Prime Minister and FDR with Eisenhower's help.

Truth hurts dont it sunshine??? Uh Waaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!

Hell no, but I heard Bill Press call Nixon and Kissinger war criminals on his talk show!!!

Hmmmmmmmmmm, double standard???

(cont)

"We were attacked by Japan, but Harry Truman took the fight to Germany. Germany never attacked us. So what? They were part of the problem."

Poor comparison. Germany was in a state of open war with our allies, officially declared war on us after Pearl and was a confirmed official ally of the nation that DID attack us. Enough of this nonsense. If Conservatives (correctly) want Liberals to stop making every war out to be Vietnam, they owe it to reason to stop making every war out to be WWII.

"George W. Bush also did the right thing. He also made the impossible choice. He also responded to an attack on our soil by going everywhere terrorists were harbored and protected."

Except that he DIDN'T. It's the Middle East. EVERY country is a place where terrorists are harbored and protected to some capacity. He went to TWO.

I hear this "Bush Lied" statement all the time, but I can never find anyone who can actually provide any proof. Who was in the room when this lie took place? Exactly what did Bush lie about? WMD doesn't count because every intelligence agency in the world, and the Clinton Administration also believed that Iraq was developing WMD!

So exactly what was the lie, and where is the proof.

Well, the Soviets were already occupying the territory they got, and the US was still at war with Japan. Roosevelt was smart enough to recognize this, and accepted it. That Churchill, whose military career was marked by horrendous miscalculations and incredicle losses, did not recognize the same hardly reflects well on him.

PS-Check out the battle at Stalingrad if you want to see what lengths the USSR would go to to defend its territory.

Both of these men are obviously war criminals. Where is so much work here justifying the sin of murder that it is plain to see you are all compensating for it. John Stewart has sponsors, he does a job, he had to take action to continue the opportunity he has been granted to speak his mind. It doesn't change facts. Murder is murder. If you caused it, it's wrong in many countries, cultures, and religions.

Our strategy as an ally was worked out in advance by FDR and Churchill. One our destroyers, the "Arliegh Burke" was attacked and sunk while conducting escort duties in the North Atlantic, I believe 111 U.S. sailors died. FDR did not use that as a reason to go to war, and Hitler was furious that his U-Boat had initiated action with the U.S. Hitler was a fool for delaring war on the U.S. Historian Robert Dalleck and others believe that U.S. participation in WWII might have been initially contained to the Pacific if not for the rash decision by the Nazi's to declare war on the U.S. Either way we would have eventually been just as involved, in my opinion.

We are all Marshall and apparently we are all war criminals as well.

Break out the bubbly, Hollywood is here.

Hey Joe,

Thanks for that perfect example of the Modern Liberal's pathological projection defense mechanism.

You are now free to remove your hypocritical clown-nose.

Plus, the USSR would be the obvious favorite due to their developmnt of the Atomic Bomb-oh wait, they didn't have the bomb in '45. So, how does that make them the favorite, again?

I think Roosevelt (and the US as a whole) just wanted the war to be over. That's why he made so many concessions at Yalta.

Familiar with St. Augustine's concept of "just war"?

You're applying a law enforcement mentality where a military solution was necessary. That was Clinton's problem and his pre 9/11 mentality has infected our current joke of a POTUS. There was a clear and justified reason to eliminate Saddam BEFORE 9/11, that event just precipitated the need for, as Bubba so eloquently put it, "regime change". Despite liberal lies and talking points that region is better off with Saddam and regime (including his genocidal family) taking eternal dirt naps.Neutering Iran should be the next project; fighting the declared jihad against our country should be conducted on THEIR SOIL, not mine and not even yours. Deciding you don't want to fight radical Islamo-fascism ISN'T an answer, it's not an option. The questions are where, when and how, not why.

type one peck at a time… chicken scratches, we call 'em. Verbal flatulence? you bet…

Good question, one that even Oliver Stone doesn't have an answer for…

One question: despite the Pew poll, can you cite one instance where Stewart ever actually called himself a "journalist"?

he had a demonstrated history of using them . Remember the Kurds?

From Biden – calling someone smart enough is quite the compliment.

Don't hide your liberal fantacizing behind any member of our U.S. military. Each and every service person that went to Iraq was a volunteer, not a draftee, GWB owes no one an apology. YOU owe the military an apology because you can breath deeply of the free air they have selflessly provided even halfwits like you. Justice will be served when you a fast moving bus make each others aquaintance. Get out a Constitution, read it (or have it read to you) and absorbe the part that deals with the parameters of the Presidency. Then look up the vote to authorize and include the 73 Senators that agreed to the Iraqi action and then go f*** yourself troll. I dare you dream up a worthy response, you can't you blithering coward. Go play hide and seek with your gerbil.

I am looking for some moral clarity here…..

If waterboarding is "torture" and "bad"

then what is executing three hapless idiots who happen to be pirates?

and what then is sending ordinance into Pakistan and Afghanistan villages killing both the guilty and the innocent?

the moral clarity of the President and his supporters is foggy at best.

I take that back, kind of. The US might've been able to take back all of Germany. No chance at Poland, the Baltics, or Latvia, though. At best I think it would've been a bloody, unending deadlock.

Vet323 brings up an interesting point about the bomb, though. Maybe it would've been deployed against the Russians. But at the time of Yalta, we were still planning on a land invasion of Japan (i.e., not ready to use the bomb). I wonder how a war with Stalin would've changed that bit of history.

You mean the Kurds he killed after the US fully supported him and his dictatorship? The ones that we didn't give one shite about afterwords when we continued to arm and supply Saddam Hussein? You mean the ones that Rumsfeld cared so little about that he went to Iraq and graciously shook the hand of Saddam Hussein in front of the media?

Oh yeah….it was all about freeing the brown-skinned people from a tyrant.

I wonder why GWB didn't care when 1 million Africans were slaughtered by a tyrant in Sudan? Do you think he just ran out of time freeing the world from tyrants?

Of course he's allowed to say whatever he wants, no matter how stupid, what do you think Breitbart.com is all about?

Again, Stewart doesn't put himself out there as anything but a comedian (I have yet to see anyone here prove differently). That's why the place where he works is called COMEDY CENTRAL.

Actually you're wrong (as most people here are), Leno, Letterman, even Dave Chappelle and Saturday Night Live have all taken pretty funny shots at Obama. Your lament is that is hasn't been with a .12 gauge.

sorry, but the reference to J. blair is about Blair making stories up out of thinair, and the Times promoting him for his skin color. The Post makes errors, but it doesn't publish fantasy or plagiarism just to advance an agenda.
http://shermansmarch.blogspot.com

It's not Stewarts fault that you numb skulls give him night after night of hilarious material.

What does it matter if he called himself a "journalist"? The argument isn't whether or not he's self-styled as a journalist, it's whether he courts the perception that he is. This he unequivocally does. "That's satire!" you'll say, "and if people don't get the difference, tough!" Fair enough if that's how you feel – but again, it's YOUR voting bloc being deceived.

Yet again, Movie Bob implies that Middle America is composed entirely of illiterate mouth-breathing rednecks.

I'll have you know, I only breathe through my mouth when my allergies are acting up.

The thing about guys like Bob is they're much more dangerous then the "idiots" he so despises. In my experience the guy who thinks he's smart always does more damage. Cause in point the guy in the White House.

So now Stewart has to troll websites for humor, guess so since with Democrats running everything we can't blame them for anything. Ah the liberals.

More Japanese died in the fire bomb attacks that preceded the A-Bombs than died from the A-Bomb attacks themselves. I have never heard a single charge of war crimes for those firebomb attacks. I just did a study of Gen. Le May for a class on WWII Pacific Theater taught by a professor that immigrated to the U.S. and saw the Nagasaki attack with his own eyes. He doesn't consider it a war crime or any current U.S. actions to be war crimes, why should an opinion from a dimwit like Auntie F's be more valid than someone that actually survived an A-Bomb attack? I think if Truman had been a Republican Stewart would have never apologized based on what he considers his own"principals" i.e. Dems=good Reps = bad.

It said he sat thinking to himself " I'm going to be POTUS, FDR will never survive his term" or thoughts to that effect. Talk about the weight of the world on his shoulders; regardless his character and fortitude shown through and he made all the correct decisions regarding ending the war in both theaters, with honor and dignity.

John, John, John…you (nor anyone else) have offered no proof that Jon Stewart walks around with a press badge on his lapel. "The Daily Show" is set up to look like a news studio to give that perception in order to take shots at newsmakers.

What's so wrong with that? What's he supposed to do, put on a polka-dot suit and big red shoes?

Jimmy, I'm not sure.. but I think you missed the key lines:

Jon Stewart was not protecting free speech. He was protecting very expensive, highly paid speech.
It is at that moment that he decided to “apologize” and defend his bottom (left) flank.
He had the courage of his “convictions,” which was to defend his rumpus from financial harm.

In other words, Eric notes that Mr. Stewart wasn't apologizing.. he was protecting his own arse from the verbal flaying he's been getting from conservatives.

Because we all know that terrorist organizations submit copies of formalized contracts declaring mutual support and/or financial backing to international bodies for our perusing. Obviously the lack of any such papers far outweighs the Sadam regime's subsidizing of suicide bombers, sheltering of known terrorists, the allowance of terrorist training camps within Iraq's borders, WMD shell-game antics, nuclear arms program-in-waiting, etcetera and so forth.

Ice cream sundaes!

"The Rumsfeld handshake of which you speak (out your anus) December 1983, happened prior to the Halabja gassing, March of 1988."

But the love given by Rummy was A href="http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/">well after chemical attacks on Iranian troops and Kurdish refugees, Yoostabee.

Who did "Chaves" attack with chemical weapons, MENSA candidate?

i not only saw it, but posted to my blog for all to see. well done….

Liked the commentary and agreed with it. However, it was Roosevelt who first took the fight to both Japan and Germany. Truman was only president for a short time during WWII. I think it would be fair to say, however, that more people died under Roosevelt and Truman, separately, than did under Bush.

"George W. Bush also did the right thing." ha ha. funny in any context, any year.

Bush didn't have to apologize, they were an all volunteer army and could have left the service at any point they wanted out.

I humbly request that you consider the term 'justice' (as referenced in the term 'just war') is highly dependent on a individual's, government's, or religious group's point of view. A point of view is only 'right' or 'wrong' when compared to an different point of view who's owner's feel they are equally 'right'.

Killing…Murder…causing the death of another human being (referred to by whatever term you feel comfortable with)…we hold different points of view if you think this action is acceptable.

And finally, why do you find it so easy to justify this action?
Do you find it just as easy to justify the actions of two individuals engaged in homosexual conduct? Robbery? Arson? Child Abuse?

[...] Go here to see the original:  Jon Stewart Courageously Defends His Bottom Flank [...]

1. Your thesis is simply not true. Halajba was a breaking point for US/Saddam relations. We were invading less than two years later. One diplomat does not a foreign policy make. Also, I clicked your link. It doesn't say a damn thing about U.S. Iraqi relationships after 1984, much less after the gassing in 1988. 1988. Here's some math help: 1988 came after both 1983 AND 1984. Did you think I wouldn't click the link? Or did you think I'd click the link and not be able to read a whole 400 word summary? Or were you just randomly posting links that do nothing to support your position? Baffled.

2. At the time of the respective handshakes, Saddam had gassed and killed EXACTLY as many of his own citizens as Chavez had gassed and killed. Identical numbers. Zero.

3. Since you brought it up, I'm not a candidate. I'm a member six years now. That's not saying much. Their standards aren't really as high as popular culture seems to think. Heck, you should give the application a try, Paul.

It was an engaging debate, but, accidental blurbs aside, Stewart did make an interesting point. Why couldn't we have just taken the atom bomb and drop it off the coast as a demonstration of this radical new power? And explain that this is something that would be used against them, i.e. the Japanese, if they would not concede to a peaceful surrender??

Okay, I'll amend that. Change "not too worried" to "hoping that they could force someone to link Iraq to 9/11".

There. That's better.

Let me add just a little to this. We have extended family in Dresden. The fire-bombing occurred about twelve weeks before the war was over anyway. It was solely done to accelerate an end to brutal street-to-street fighting throughout portions of Germany which had not yet been occupied. Unlike Japan (Hiroshima and Nagasaki), Germany did not put its military and industrial facilities inside major population centers such as Dresden. The fire-bombing was designed solely to instill fear and horror in the German populace, and served no other military purpose. It was very effective. So let's compare how the Germans feel about Dresden to how the current crop of Japanese feel about HIroshima and Nagasaki. The typical German reaction is basically, "it was horrible, but after what we did, we deserved it." The typical Japanese reaction is "we were fighting a war against western imperialism, and we did nothing to deserve having our innocent civilians murdered by the use of an unthinkable weapon." The Germans are still trying to atone for their Nazi past. The Japanese are burying the truth, and getting the assistance of the hand-wringing press and academia in America. The Japanese are wonderful people, and genuine allies. But they have a huge and growing blind spot which serves neither them nor history well.

'scuse me – Germany declared war on the US 4 days after Pearl Harbor. They alomst immediately commenced an all out U-boat attack attack on US shipiing up and down the east coast.

America did NOT attack Germany despite suffering several attacks on American warships (including the sinking of the Reuben James) prior to Pearl Harbor.

Justification isn't difficult if you believe that moral clarity in one instance supersedes the moral ambiguity preserved in a lesser. By way of explanation: what you've said suggests moral relativism, which I'm not here to argue against (unless that's a discussion you'd like to have). It's a question of semantics: "just" war presupposes that there's a clear distinction between premeditated murder and the loss of life as a byproduct of the pursuit of a greater good. This is called graded absolutism and most people, religious or irreligious, will agree that attempting to achieve an equilibrium negates smaller sins (lying to protect Jews from being killed by Nazis, for example).

If you believe that the concept of a greater good exists, we're on the same page. You you think that actions taken at the categorical expense of a single person or group of people – such as rape or genocide – is always wrong irrespective of an individual's, government's or religious group's point of view, then we agree.

If causing the death of any human being is always unjust, even if by killing one or a thousand Hitlers one might prevent tens of millions from dying, then you're right – our points of view diverge radically.

I stand corrected.You and the other 75 vegetables who watch this retard think he is funny.Okie Dokie.By the way, changing your posting name doesn't help, the dullness gives you away

Calling the other side "disease riddled" is not the way to win an argument. Only fools and ideologues refute the message by attacking the messenger.

I agree that Stewart should not have apologized, and I agree that Truman was not a war criminal. The reason Truman didn't hang for dropping the A-Bomb is because America won that war, and the victor runs the war crimes tribunal. It's a simple matter of victor's law, and has nothing to do with whether the law SHOULD apply to the conduct of the victor.

The "law of war" forbids the imposition of disproportionate force that might result in excessive civilian casualties, regardless of who started the war originally. Hence, it dispassionately prohibits EITHER SIDE in a conflict from dropping an A-Bomb, or incendiaries, on civilian targets. Yet, the law is not self-enforcing; indeed, it is the victor who applies the law. Truman escaped the ignominy of being a war criminal because he had the good fortune being on the winning side of the war. That's why Stewart was mistaken. However, I agree that Stewart should not have bothered apologizing; it draws more attention to the issue than it deserves, and I don't think that he was 'normatively' incorrect. Were a commentator in Stewart's mold speaking to the descendants of the victorious Japanese empire, I am sure it would be considered a given that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were abhorrent war crimes.

The tripe about Truman being a "democrat" is politicized paranoia. It's not like Stewart would extol the virtues of Southern Democrats who kept Jim Crow alive in Arkansas or Alabama, so why should a person's party affiliation over 50 years ago determine whether he is owed an apology?

Remember, the bombs hastened an end to WWII. Had the war continued to drag on, more would have surely died.
Dropping the bomb saved Japanese lives, too.

"(For those that are part of the Jon Stewart love orgy, Ideological Bigotry is my groundbreaking new book that exposes leftist hatred. Middle America gets it. You should as well.)"

Pfffhahahahahaha

this Golub guy looks like a child molester and therefore has zero credibility.

So you admit you're an idiot, then. Of couse I am using your twisted logic to draw that conclusion. Your infantile response proves the points made about you and your opinion. Grow up and state when you really mean.

When i first read this article I thought this was a parody by the Daily Show making fun of Jon Stewart, written by one of his on-air journalists (the author looks like one of those guys!). But then I realized that the author was actually seriously addressing Jon Stewart's opinion about Harry Truman as a war criminal, as if Stewart's opinion deserved serious consideration. From my point of view, neither Truman or Bush should be considered a war criminal (see numerous African dictators for the proper definition). But as most reasonable people can see looking back over the last eight years, Bush made plenty of mistakes in office, and his legacy will likely be held in low regard.
I would think that's something all of us could agree on–left or right.

"Now, I don't know where you're getting that Jon Stewart props himself up as an analyst "

Denial ain't a river in Egypt….I guess we'll go with the willfully ignorant, huh?

"If you're right, then does that mean comedians simply should be legally banned from bashing politicians and bureaucrats?"

You keep making noises like this. I never once suggested that anyone be prohibited from speaking. Man, put down Mein Kampf for a minute and actually read what I'm saying instead of thinking of something semi-clever to write….

That I don't know. Cramer seems like a nice fellow, but maybe not the sharpest pencil in the box.

That's my point, everyone is afraid of offending Obama and the extremist minions lest someone publish their home address and send a mob there.

If SNL or MadTV or any of the other usual suspects did a skit with Obama stuttering or misreading a teleprompter or any of the other 100 gaffes out there this article wouldn't exist. But no one has the grapes to do it. While slamming Bush and Ford, and even Clinton is ok.

For some reason Obama gets a pass and I think it's cowardly.

This was Great.

What a crock. Yea, we were such a beacon that those towlies came and flew some planes into our buildings. We were so doing the right things for so long that they declared war on us by bombs and terror while the big dog wagged his tail as these thought to be flees. If W lied about WMD's then Clinton lied, the Kerry lied and the British lied, the French and on and on. They all claimed he had them but none of them had the kahona's to do anything. Right now you would be looking at a nuke armed Iraq and Iran and N Korea had we not done anything. Your answer no doubt would have been to have the UN sign another piece of paper saying how upset we are they you are shooting at NATO planes and paying palistinians to blow up jews.

An exercise for those conservatives who believe in moral relatives:

When does killing (possibly hundreds of thousands) of civilians NOT make one a war criminal?

Careful with you answers though, as we don't want to end up justifying things that we KNOW are war crimes (Saddam gassing the Kurds, ect).

Iraq attacked our ally, We beat them back, then foolishly stopped (that genius Colin Powell's idea) and let Saddam eradicate anybody who supported us in that war. We then let the goddamn UN spend over a decade lecturing Saddam while surreptitiously doing cash deals with him and lining their own pockets.

There is no perfect analogy to what happened with Iraq. Most of the people who support the war (or, like Kerry, have both supported and been against it) do so with some trepidation: while we know what happened, we do not know what WOULD have happened if we did not attack. We do, however, have indicators: we know that Saddam had WMD (heck, we did sell him some, and we did find some in the invasion). We know he hosted Al Qaeda operatives and gave them refuge. We know that he saw himself as a historical figure and a great leader. We know that Iran and the other surrounding countries had huge legions of fanatical Islamist fighters. Attacking Iraq took care of many of those problems. It showed the world that we would strike if attacked. It created a fighting front, rather than allowing the terrorists to keep striking us on our own turf (in which the best case liberal scenario is we catch someone afterwards and send them to charm school in Oklahoma). We created an ally in the Middle East – which isn't easy for them or us (look at Pakistan) but certainly better than a gigantic block of religious fanatic terrorists-in-training. It's a stepping-stone approach.

It isn't all wine and roses. But it also isn't as clear cut as "Bush lied, people died". The difference is maturity. Stewart's argument, and the entire argument about "Bush war crimes", is simply immature, partisan, and inherently harmful to the well-being of our country.

"I have heard people call Kennedy and Truman war criminals"

Yeah. So did we, with Jon Stewart. They're wrong (and Stewart recanted). This, and the hypocrisy of MOST people not considering them war criminals when they wrongly consider Bush one, were the entire point of this piece.

So you're saying that the winner calls the shots? I'm sure that surprises you, but once you graduate high school you might find it common.

Your conclusion is simply false and disingenuous: the rationale is not "whatever we do to them is okay". The reason we don't prosecute ourselves for war crimes is because we look to two things: our moral guidelines and our intent. You cannot look at the accidental overstep or collateral damage the same way you do deliberate acts of extermination. If you did, every stray bomb would result in a war crimes tribunal. Every pilot given "100% intelligence" on a target that proved faulty would be tried for war crimes. There would be no trust, and nobody to fight our wars. Which means we would cripple ourselves by our own rules, and we'd lose simply because we were too high-and-mighty to fight. Even knowing that, we still frequently try (and punish) our soldiers for incorrect battlefield behavior. We refuse to fire on targets with less than high probability of usefulness. We already tie one hand behind our back. War Crimes trials are for those without such self-control. In other shocking news, a speeder gets a ticket; a policeman speeding to catch him does not.

The key word is "indiscriminate". We are very discriminatory in how we apply force in civilian areas – often to our own detriment. The problem is that in war, civilians die. Bombs and bullets stray. Democratic Presidents bomb innocent pharmaceutical plants on bad intelligence.

Powell sucks because he is a Rino, shows moral weakness and thinks that higher taxes and bigger govnernment is a good thing. He supported Obama because he was worried about his own political stance, which makes him more of a self-servant than a public servant. He is the type of lukewarm spittle worthy to be spewed out of ones mouth. He is not a valiant leader. He is a weak follower. He has no ideas what the Rep party stands for and if and when he leaves the Rep party, good riddance.

Chain of events as I see them

1) Jon Stewart was thinking that Truman was a conservative because he heard the word military bombing and got mixed up on party affiliation.
2) Eventually somebodies mother informed Jon that Truman was indeed a democrat and that it is a huge no no to say negative about Democrats, even if they are satan themselves (which most fill the bill)
3) Jon said sorry to save his sorry arse.

This is so easy to understand that even a liberal would get it, in the event a liberal had a brain, which most dont, so most wont.

"George W. Bush also did the right thing. He also made the impossible choice. He also responded to an attack on our soil by going everywhere terrorists were harbored and protected."
That explains why George took us to war with Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan, Iran…

The point was not linking Saddam to 9/11. He had demonstrable ties to anti-US terrorists.

Jon Stewart is a blatant self serving coward. I need say nothing more.

I love this argument. It's so utterly lacking in common sense that it makes the user seem like he's never bothered to follow a thought process in his life. If you actually read that book, you'll notice that it took months to get any information at all, and that was by having one interrogator available to be responsible for one single prisoner. Also, the information obtained was not of critical importance for safety or breaking up terrorist cells. So if they had intel that another attack on American soil was likely and imminent, they probably felt they didn't have time to build a long-term relationship with the terrorist who had helped plan it.

There is proof that the technique worked, but at the moment Obama is too afraid to let the public see it. Funny, when the Bush administration blacked out entire pages of intelligence, the Left screamed conspiracy. When Barack does it, the Left swoons at his magnificent pectorals. {sigh}

I had a Junior High student tell me about his love for all things Obama. I tried to change the subject, but he wanted to know why I wasn't willing to worship at his alter. When I told him that Obama was couldn't be believed because of how many times he's lied, the kid angrily asked me to name one. After 10 or 15, he asked me to stop and get back to the lesson.

It is a wonderful slam on a low-rent comedian. Stewart's fame could only have been achieved during this generation, as his bad Letterman-ripoff act wouldn't have worked other than for the kind of audience that holds up Dane Cook as an icon of wit and humor. My generation gave us Disco and Polyester….this generation will one day have to apologize for their poor contributions to society.

Dear God. Will people ever stop generalizing? This goes for people with more or less all political views on this site. "damn leftists", "stupid right wing nutjobs" (I'm paraphrasing if that's not clear) etc etc. My opinion is that the nuclear bomb was a humane disaster. Wether it was the "right" decision or not for USA does not concern me. It was horrible for Japan, even if they were playing ball with Germany. Russia saved the European ass back in WWII while USA ejaculated all over Japan.

Jon Stewarts apology sucked by the way. I find the show funny, but the apology looked very forced which is a shame since it only goes to show that there are some things you just aren't allowed to say on TV.

1. "Establishing direct contact" doesn't strike me as nefarious.

2. Perhaps, in hindsight, President Reagan was mistaken. Perhaps sanctions should have been used earlier, given how effective they were later and how many innocent Iraqis benefited from them.

3. I can't find anyone claiming that gas was used in the Dujail massacre.

4. Insulting people's intelligence doesn't make you look smart. It makes you look immature.

I keep re-reading what Jon S said in his "apology" and I can't find the place where he apologized to anybody. He admitted that what he said had been stupid, and he regretted having said it, but not becuase it might have offended anyone, only becuase it had been stupid. He "didn't believe" that HST was a war criminal. He "walked it back because it was stupid." He got in a one-word "sorry" right at the end, but it was a trifle meager. So he was kinda apolgizing to himslef for making himself look bad. A minor point, I know, but Dr. Freud would get a couple of sessions out of it, at least.

The "Rueben James", sunk Oct.11th, 1941. 100 U.S. sailors died, 44 rescued. There is a new "Reuben James" plying the oceans, the Wiki reference (not my usual source of reliable reference, but it seems acurate enough, says that the U.S.S. Rueben James plays a part in "The Hunt for Red October" a favorite film of mine, Clancy is great.

Jack420!

I didn't suggest Jon was "stupid," but I checked my brain anyway and I seem to be OK. I checked my post and I even remembered the quotation marks. Jon was calling himself "stupid" because of what he said, and if he is as smart as we both think he is, he must be right. But maybe we should check his brain.

When is everyone going to realize that someone is on television because they are good at just that: being on television. Jon Stewart, Sean Hannity, Keith Olbermann all do the same thing, but direct it towards different target demographics. Stewart, however, is the only one who would be willing to admit this.

Stewart hosts a comedy show that makes me laugh, and that's why I, and thousands of others, tune in. If you think otherwise, then you are just plain wrong. I'd be willing to bet that he believes in what he says, like most of the others on cable. If there were a funnier conservative hosting a comedy show at 11PM every night, I would watch that show instead.

Cable television has one goal: to get viewers to wait through the commercials in between. When will we stop taking the content so seriously and start thinking about the issues. This writer comes off sounding juvenile, and unlike Stewart, not funny at all.

I agree,I am not a fan of Jon but he is very intelligent and sharp witted.If you debate Jon you must come very prepared and know your stuff or he will slice and dice you.

This is too good to be true. I thank God that GWB had the stones to do what he did. Stewert is a blithering ediot. To think, he would acutally sacrifice the lives of thousands of Americans to "hold his head up high." Sadly, this is the mentality of the current occupant of the White House. Doesn't he read the threat assesments every day?

Actually, it was very good for Japan. The Emporer had already made a statement that they were all (every man, woman, and child) going to fight to the death to repel the Americans. The children were reportedly being trained for suicide bombings. Even after the first bomb wiped out an entire city, they refused to surrender (so much for dropping one out in the ocean). If we had invaded (and done aerial bombing runs to support that invasion) we would have killed far more Japanese citizens than the two bombs did. There is no way to guess how long they would have fought, but it's obvious to anyone who's read the history that the death toll would have been vastly larger for them (forgetting all the Americans who would die in the process).

By the way, since everything on the show is scripted (other than his interviews), don't you mean that his writing staff has a wicked blend of humor and sarcasm? Let's give credit where credit is due.

No one outside the United States believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. I know, because I live outside the United States.

Yeah, Pelosi, Reed, Schumer, Frank, Stewert who wholeheartedly approved sending my ass over to both places but then tried to blame my Commander in Chief and cut the funding off and make it seem like a big joke at a cocktail party???? Those guys….ha….GWB is more a man then Obama, and the entire Democratic party is all rolled up into one. Not saying he didn't make mistakes, or did things that I didn't like or agree with, but at least he had a backbone.

Your name is a oxymoron. If your a modern day democrat, then your fascist.

Oh well, since you put it like that, we'll just have to take your word on it since you must know more than everyone else in the world. God how fatuous can you be?

Your reply here implies that you view these people as common criminals rather than prisoners taken in a war. There is a HUGE difference that you seem unable to wrap your head around. Proof of guilt is not necessary for a POW as they can be detained under the Geneva Convention until the end of the war so that they cannot return to combat. Furthermore, the requirements for "humane" treatment differ for any prisoners taken who are not members of an army of a nation displaying a uniform. These guys could have all, to the last, been summarily executed on the battlefield. So country to represent? No uniform? You might be a spy. Spies can be executed on the spot.

The article is good but there is one big historical blooper. Harry Truman did not take us to war against Germany. FDR did. Hitler made a stupendous mistake by declaring war against the United States the day after Japan attacked. Without that declaration of war by Germany, FDR would have had difficulty getting Congress to declare war against Germany, at least for a while.

We can only hope. Just wish it'd kick in faster…

While Stewart's apology certainly lacked sincerity, I think he is being honest. I don't believe Jon Stewart thinks that Truman is a war criminal. I think Jon got into an intellectual tug-of-war with someone way above his weight class and was forced to say something untrue ("Truman is a war criminal") in order to avoid losing the debate.

If Stewart had said "No, Truman is not a war criminal", he would have been force to concede the point to May during the debate.

For this, I find Stewart's behavior to be less than respectable.

Des posted this according to my mail inbox: "Actually, it was very good for Japan. The Emporer had already made a statement that they were all (every man, woman, and child) going to fight to the death to repel the Americans. The children were reportedly being trained for suicide bombings. Even after the first bomb wiped out an entire city, they refused to surrender (so much for dropping one out in the ocean). If we had invaded (and done aerial bombing runs to support that invasion) we would have killed far more Japanese citizens than the two bombs did. There is no way to guess how long they would have fought, but it's obvious to anyone who's read the history that the death toll would have been vastly larger for them (forgetting all the Americans who would die in the process)."

I will reply in the next reply

If we are going to call Bush a war criminal for waterboarding 3 people and locking up around a thousand nuts bent on killing us, then we should immediately remove FDR's image from our money as he locked up an entire racial group based solely on the fact they were japanese and also many german-americans couldnt get jobs or help the war effort in any meaningful way for the same reason. So he is by far a much bigger war criminal if we compare. And Kennedy abandoned the cubans that were fighting to free themselves of castros rebels when they needed us most. Truly 2 sad presidents that are held up as great when all the facts say otherwise.

My one great-uncle that fought in WWII is still alive, and to this day worships Patton. But his unit also went through Flossenbürg, so putting SS on the line (no matter what type of SS) would have been a very hard sell to them at best, and a probable mutiny in all likelihood. There are some things you just can't un-see and some associations you can't disconnect.

So, you're comfortable just completely misrepresenting the Author's original point like that? He was talking about Truman attacking the Germans after the US being attacked by Japan. NOT our "retaliatory" attack on the Japanese. So…by your own standard then you are saying that Truman is a war criminal for invading the sovereign country of Germany.

You're a dolt.

The liberals have taken over the MSM.

It's their way or the highway.

This is a great write up, true and funny. John Stewart used to be funnier, but sadly, he has let his studio audience shape him… and they are mostly liberal dumblephucks.

no doubt- he wasn't a poitician… he thought of himself more along the lines of Alexander and other conquerors- re-incarnated, you know/ Yes thw Waffen SS would have been a tough sell…

that's right- we've yet to see a real pie, haven't we?

Reading your hatred of Jon Stewart was really very amusing. He just kills you Repubs doesn't he? It must suck to constantly be schooled by a comedian every night. Poor Repubs. Your weakness and patheticness gets more evident as the days go by. I'm curious, other than all your other pathetic sheep who are pre-disposed to agree with you, who the hell else do you think you're convincing? Oh that's right, nobody. Hey, don't hate on me. I'm just telling you the truth. Though I understand the truth is something conservatives often have difficulty with, what with it requring brain power and all.